Thread by @TheLeaflet_in

Day 16

#AyodhyaHearing

A five-judge bench comprising CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan & Abdul Nazeer has assembled.

Hearing resumed.

Sr. Adv. P N Mishra continuing.

P N Mishra reading out a hadith to indicate that in prophet's time when dispute arose between Muslims and Jews, Justice was administered by the book of the Jews.

#AyodhyaHearing

PN Mishra is also submitting, with support of Hadith, that 2 qibla (direction of worship) in one place. He submits that 2 places of religious worship cannot exist in the same site.

#AyodhyaHearing

Mr. Mishra further submits that Imam Abu Hanifa had said that if at least 2 times prayer everyday is not being performed followed after a public call, that place is not a public mosque.

#AyodhyaHearing

Mr. Mishra also submits that since in the ASI excavation chulha and utensils were found, such place cannot be a mosque since it has been stated in Hadith that a mosque is not a place of gossip.

#AyodhyaHearing

The next submission of Mr. Mishra is that a structure having
images or idols and designs cannot be a Mosque under Shariat Law
and therefore disputed structure as it was cannot be termed
"mosque".

#AyodhyaHearing

It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra that there cannot be a mosque in a place surrounded by
graves since facing towards graves Namaz cannot be offered. Argument is being supplemented by Hadith as quoted in the HC Judgment

#AyodhyaHearing

Mr. Mishra submits that Narsingh Puraan states bells to be an important aspect of Hinduism.

J. Bobde: Are there bells in disputed structure?

PNM: Yes my lords deity cannot be worshipped without bells.

J. Bobde: We have not seen it in evidence.

#AyodhyaHearing

PN Mishra states that in evidence after attachment in 1949 a big bell was found.

Bhushan: This was after 22-23rd? then it won't help.

#AyodhyaHearing

J. Bobde: There are bells in Christianity also?

PNM: Yes, when first time it was discussed how to give azaan Umar had suggested ringing of bells but prophet did not allow it, the Bilal suggested to give a call and he was given that honor.

#AyodhyaHearing

Next Submission of Mr. Mishra is that there was no provision of wazue(ablution) in the disputed site .

J. Bhushan: Mr. Mishra you have already read hadith that wazu can also be with dust.

PNM: My lords where water is not available, this was mosque.

J.Bhushan: But there are pots mentioned that they were there, this is a weak ground Mr. Mishra.

PNM: This is my submission.

#AyodhyaHearing

PNM: This mosque was not in exclusive control of muslims and therefore cannot be a mosque.

#AyodhyaHearing

J. Bhushan: Mr. Mishra monarchs also had bells & on ringing of bells fariyadi came.

PNM: it is about place of worship, & monarchs could do anything, they were monarch.

J. Bhushan: But your submission yesterday was that monarchs could not do anything beyond law of Shariat.

Relying upon a book of 1867 P N Mishra submits that there was interpolations in the revenue records in Awadh.

J. Bhushan: These are general observations in the book and it mentions 1821.

It is next being submitted by Mr. Mishra that there is no evidence of Namaz being offered prior to 1855.

#ayodhyadisputehearing

PN Mishra concludes.

Adv. Hari Shankar Jain now starts submissions on behalf of All India Hindu Mahasabha.

HS Jain: The question is whether Hindu temple was existing on the site, second whether any structure was razed by Muslim rulers,

HS Jain: third whether the structure was used by Muslims as mosque, fourth, bh virtue of Article 13 Hindu law was what was operating, fourth what is the effect of non registration of waqf, on these aspects i will make submission.

#AyodhyaCase

HS Jain: Before 1855 there was no whisper of a mosque, it was the britishers that introduced this and a railing was put and there all dispute starts. No documentary or oral evidence is placed regarding there being a mosque between 1528 and 1855.

#AyodhyaCase

HS Jain: The earliest document is Ain i Akbari, there is not even one mention of mosque. On the other hand hindu puja, ram navmi celebration everything is recorded.

#ayodhyadisputehearing

HS Jain: Up till 1770, there is also no mention of Muslims including Muslim historians. First Gazetteer is 1877-78, in this it is mentioned that Hindus reoccupied Hanumangarhi and took Janmasthan again.

HS Jain: It was britishers who put a railing to create differences. Since 1855 Hindus are exercising curtailed rights. During British period our right to worship was curtailed.

HS Jain: Then the question is why, if Hindus have taken back the possesion before enforcement of Constitution in 1949 then we had all rights, all restrictions (that were put on Hindu worship), in Article 13(1) have become void.

HS Jain: There going to offer namaz is irrelevant, it was a Hindu temple. There is room for namaz in Airports can they ask possesion.

HS Jain: I submit that Hindu Law will prevail, Babar invaded India, invaders actions cannot be justified.

Bench rises for the lunch.

Hearing to resume at 2 pm.

#AyodhyaHearing

#AyodhyaHearing

Post lunch session.

Bench has assembled.

Counsel for Shia Waqf Board: I am supporting the Hindu side, my request is to hear me for a while before other side starts.

CJI: Please be seated.

J. Bobde: who is the head of Hindu Mahasabha.

HS Jain: There is some dispute so two appeals are filed one by one faction and second by the other.

Another lawyer: There are 3 appeals. Baba Nand Kishor is present.

#AyodhyaHearing

CJI: You want to be heard?

Lawyer: Yes.

CJI: Please be seated.

#AyodhyaHearing

Mr. Hari Shankar Jain, on behalf of Hindu Mahasabha, submits before the bench that as per Islam and Ayahs in Quran, the bounty of war cannot be taken by soldiers.

#ayodhyadisputehearing

HS Jain is now reading excerpts from Babarnama. He indicates that Babar had recorded in Babarnama that he is giving up Wine and as he shattered the cups of wine idolaters shall be too and taking aid of the same submits that Babar was a fanatic.

HSJ: My submission is that only Hindu Law is applicable in this case. This case should be decided on the basis of Shastras and Hi du Law.

J. DYC: Hindu Law will not tell us about mosque.

HSJ: I am not talking about Muslim law.

HSJ: My submission is that only Hindu Law is applicable in this case. This case should be decided on the basis of Shastras and Hi du Law.

J. DYC: Hindu Law will not tell us about mosque.

HSJ: I am not talking about Muslim law.

HSJ: In Judgment of 1885 there is a finding that Babar had destroyed the mosque. The other side is relying on that Judgment that is binding on them. and in the shia suit the 1946 Judgment also it is recorded that a Hindu temple was demolished to build the mosque.

Mr. H.S. Jain's submission before the bench is that by virtue of Art. 13(1) an act of a Muslim invader cannot continue once the Constitution.

H S Jain: Also there was Ram's picture in the original constitution.

CJI: Let hear the other counsel for Hindu Mahasabha.

Virender Sharma, Adv. Starts for 2nd faction of Hindu Mahasabha.

Now Shia board's cousel is asked to address court.

#AyodhyaHearing

Counsel for Shia Waqf Board submits that he will address 2 aspects, first regarding adverse possession and second notification dated 26.02.1944, upon which Muslims rely.

There was an amount of revenue attached to the property about 303 rupees. Till 1936 Shias were in possesion and none challenged. After 1936 Act there was difference in Sunni Waqfs and Shia Waqfs, counsel for Shia Waqf Board.

Counsel for Shia Waqf Board submits that he will address 2 aspects, first regarding adverse possession and second notification dated 26.02.1944, upon which Muslims rely.

He submits that the first Mutawalli was Baqi who was a Shia and He never claimed adverse possesion and so doesn't shia waqf board.

They have never said that at any point of time there was a sunni mutawalli.

There was an amount of revenue attached to the property about 303 rupees. Till 1936 Shias were in possesion and none challenged. After 1936 Act there was difference in Sunni Waqfs and Shia Waqfs, counsel for Shia Waqf Board

He claims no notice was issued before registering the property as Sunni Waqf notice was not issued to Shias.

J Bhushan: The issue between Shias and Sunnis was decided in 1946.

Counsel: I have filed SLP against that.

MC Dhingra (counsel for Shia board): In this mosque both Sunnis and Shias were praying and since the Taraweeh namaz was not in Shias and only in Sunnis so for their convenience a Sunni Imam was appointed.

#AyodhyaHearing

CJI: Do we need to see all this? You are not opposing whatever has been argued so far and what will be argued by the other side we do not know.

Dhingra: I should be given opportunity to reply.

J. DYC: You have filed an SLP challenging more than 70 year old order?

CJI: What are you challenging in SLP.

Dhingra: 1946 Judgment.

CJI: Why should we condone delay.

Bench rises for the day.